Get Lead List

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return shape (count plus per-state breakdown) and even how to interpret the numbers. It says nothing about permissions, error behaviour (e.g. invalid list_id), or whether counts are cached/live, and the existing output schema already covers the return fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then two short supporting blocks. The interpretation paragraph (connection note vs list quality) is domain guidance rather than invocation help, so it earns its place less clearly, but nothing is bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description nonetheless enriches them. The main gap is procedural: how to obtain a valid list_id and what to do on failure, which the description omits entirely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one required parameter, list_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place it could be explained. It refers to 'one lead list' but never defines what a list_id is, its format, or that it comes from list_lead_lists, leaving the agent to infer the identifier's origin.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Get one lead list') and immediately scopes the return ('with its lead count and a breakdown by lead state'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_lead_lists. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through the framing 'The state breakdown is the useful part' and the diagnostic hint about Not Accepted vs Contacted, which tells the agent this is an inspection/diagnosis tool. However, it never states when to reach for this vs list_lead_lists or search_leads, nor any prerequisites such as needing the workspace/list context first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.